As far as I’m aware, for instance, if an image was first published and copyright secured for it in 1965, it gets a 95-year term in the US, not a life+70 term.

The key question is whether at least one copy of the image has ever made it in the public domain overseas. If it has, and if American copyright has to respect this public domain determination, then according to Corel (an American precedent, mind you), pretty much all photographs of that same image would have to be considered public domain in the US. I don’t care whether an American-published book of a German painter is still under copyright. I care whether a image of a painting by a German who died in 1937 was published originally in Germany. If it was, then it would go into the public domain in Germany. If Golan applied for works which went into the public domain in another country after 1996, would that imply that all versions of that same image would flip into the public domain in the US? I honestly have no idea if this applies to works published overseas which flipped to the public domain after 1996.

Sod off, Wiki-bamas!

I think the question depends on whether a painting was first published abroad or in US and whether it was in the public domain in the home country as of 1996.

I’m looking at Hirtle’s copyright chart . Pay particular attention to the section marked “Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities” :

1923 through 1977 (Works Published Abroad Before 1978 Without Compliance with US Formalities): If a work is in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996, it’s Death +70.

A lot of foreign-published works were considered public domain in the US because they didn’t comply with US formalities.

The U.S. originally considered these foreign-published works in the public domain, but the Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored copyright protection on these works until 2047 (more or less). That is why Golan vs. Gonzales (which challenged Uruguay Round Agreements Act passed by the US) copyright to these US public domain works) seems like such a big deal.

In retrospect, it probably was a mistake for me to split the report about Golan vs. Gonzales with this one about wikipedia/images because they seem so interrelated.

As I see it, Bridgeman v Corel says that if you have just a single instance of a published photograph of a painting in the public domain in the US, then by implication all photographs of that painting are considered public domain in the U.S. as well. I could be wrong here (and Bridgeman is not a very sturdy precedent yet). So if a painting were in the public domain in France as of 1996, then any photograph of that painting would also go into the public domain in the US. (Now I don’t know about the state of public domain in EU countries in 1996). The reason I am pointing to foreign-produced works so much is that it is easier to figure out when copyright protection ends (it’s Death + 70). In the U.S. it is too difficult to make this determination (because you would need to locate a specific publication that gives you a basis for claiming public domain).

As far as whether Rule of the Shorter Term still applies, some at Wikipedia have said that the US explicit rejection of the Rule of the Shorter Term doesn’t exply because of Uruguay. Here’s the wikipedia commentary on the Shorter Term rule :

Any requirements from the Berne Convention thus needed to be spelled out explicitly in the U.S. Copyright law to make them effective in the United States.[11] But Title 17 of the United States Code does not contain any article on the rule of the shorter term. The only mention of such a rule was added in 1994 with the URAA in 17 USC 104A, which automatically restored copyrights on many foreign works, unless these works had already fallen in the public domain in their country of origin on the URAA date, which is January 1, 1996 for most foreign countries. Because there is no general rule of the shorter term in U.S. Copyright law, U.S. courts have declined to apply that rule on several occasions.

Finally, I should mention my ambivalence about citing Wikipedia articles when talking about copyright law in the US. On the one hand, the issues are of vital importance to Wikipedia, so I would expect the organization to give these articles a significantly higher level of scrutiny than it would for a page about a celebrity. On the other hand, this is Wikipedia we’re talking about, and it’s not terribly hard to insert a wacky interpretation here and there.

By the way, because I fear my semi-informed pronouncements have misled too many readers already, I will refrain from making further comments here and let commenters enlighten us (In the meantime, I am booking my space elevator reservations today).

“Basically it said that a country cannot prolong copyright longer than what it is in the country where it was first published. ”

No, it simply says that that’s the default assumption, if the country’s laws don’t say otherwise. Note the “unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides” language. It’s not a requirement that countries adopt the rule of the shorter term; it’s simply an allowed exception to Berne and local term minimums, and effectively an incentive to get other countries to increase their terms to match those of other countries. (Repeatedly and reciprocally, if necessary, which we’re seeing the deleterious effects of now.)

There are lots of countries besides the US that don’t use the rule of the shorter term for at least some works of foreign origin. Canada, for instance, doesn’t use it for US works.

Also, I don’t see how you come to the conclusion (or, for that matter, where the WP discussion comes to the conclusion) that the life+70 rules apply in the US for pre-1978 image publications. As far as I’m aware, for instance, if an image was first published and copyright secured for it in 1965, it gets a 95-year term in the US, not a life+70 term.

But I’m not a lawyer either. Someone who *is* a lawyer and has written a book about public domain status is Stephen Fishman; those who want expert opinions on these matters might want to check out his book _The Public Domain_ (Nolo Press). It includes chapters on how the public domain works for images and the like.